boro 2-2 NUFC

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

[Dr Gloom 21823]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

 

i dunno, if i was a chairman i'd want give a manager a few months - at least until christmas if i'd just let him assemble a side in the summer.

[Marko 0]

Not sure if this has been posted further back but I had to laugh at this story when I read it today:

 

Newcastle fans took full advantage of the 3,743 seats allocated to them and Boro supporters on Gazettelive and the Fly Me To The Moon fanzine’s website blamed much of the trouble on Newcastle supporters taking up seats in Middlesbrough areas of the ground.

 

Writing on the Fly Me To The Moon website, parmoboy said: “I was sat in the North-west and it came very close to kicking off when a Geordie started celebrating Newcastle’s first goal. Loads of lads around me were getting wound up asking him to be removed.

 

“It got to the point where the Boro fans were getting more and more wound up.”

 

Parmoboy added that a club steward had no choice but to ask a police officer to escort the offending “Geordie” from the ground.

 

From the evening gazette here in boro. Few things, if this parmo boy couldn't take the banter and couldn't hack getting wound up by opposition fans then he really needs to asses whether he should attend football matches. Banter and piss taking happens at every single match up and down the country every single week regardless of which teams are playing! For him to complain to a steward about a Newcastle fan clearly celebrating the fact we have scored a goal is beyond pathetic.

[Guest alex]

hughton will be our manager next season. we may as well back him

I will, as soon as the odds on first manager to get the sack in Premier League are made available.

 

i would agree that he'll be the favourite for the chop but what else can you do as a supporter but get behind him?

 

i think it's an unplayable situation. what do you do? sack the manager that takes us up or give him a chance and get behind him even though you don't fancy him to do a decent job?

 

given that he will almost certainly still be in charge if we are promoted and ashley still our owner i don't see what we can do other than get behind him.

It was tongue-in-cheek tbh.

 

yeah, i got that.

Aye, I could tell by the response

[Renton 21364]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

 

How did the sacking of Daglish and replacement with Gullit bring improvement? Do you really think its justifiable to sack a manager TWO games into a season? Do you really not think it would have been better to bin Daglish at the end of the previous season to give his replacement some time to form his own team?

 

You talk a lot of sense LM but posts like this show you're blinded by loyalty to the old board imo.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

 

How did the sacking of Daglish and replacement with Gullit bring improvement? Do you really think its justifiable to sack a manager TWO games into a season? Do you really not think it would have been better to bin Daglish at the end of the previous season to give his replacement some time to form his own team?

 

You talk a lot of sense LM but posts like this show you're blinded by loyalty to the old board imo.

 

improvement in terms of what happened after the manager was changed and the reasons for the change. Remember - Dalglish was sacked primarily because we had sank badly in the league, along with the accent on negative football ie "attack attack" at Wembley in the FA Cup Final of all places. They allowed him to make changes in the summer and the first few games were no different. So they sacked him, again, remember the support was not very happy with what they were seeing, and like it or not, you have to listen to your support (Shame Ashley doesn't)

 

I realise some are going to say they should have been stronger, but that is only because Gullit also didn't turn out to restor the Keegan style and results either. He DID however, give more entertaining football (now this is not my particular ideal I don't give a fuck for this "sexy football" bollocks") but we moved up the table and reached the FA Cup Final again.

 

Robson is not in dispute. But these changes were all made right at the start of the season and so re-affirms that the "timing" is totally irrelevant when put aside the choice.

 

Do you really think it would have been "good timing" to sack a manager with the record Dalglish had, who had just got you to the FA Cup Final for the first time in 24 years (if Shearer had not been injured, that season could have been a lot different anyway but that is another story)

 

By the way, Alex Ferguson was appointed by ManU in the November, and Arsene Wenger in the September too. Were they "bad timing" ?

[Renton 21364]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

 

How did the sacking of Daglish and replacement with Gullit bring improvement? Do you really think its justifiable to sack a manager TWO games into a season? Do you really not think it would have been better to bin Daglish at the end of the previous season to give his replacement some time to form his own team?

 

You talk a lot of sense LM but posts like this show you're blinded by loyalty to the old board imo.

 

improvement in terms of what happened after the manager was changed and the reasons for the change. Remember - Dalglish was sacked primarily because we had sank badly in the league, along with the accent on negative football ie "attack attack" at Wembley in the FA Cup Final of all places. They allowed him to make changes in the summer and the first few games were no different. So they sacked him, again, remember the support was not very happy with what they were seeing, and like it or not, you have to listen to your support (Shame Ashley doesn't)

 

I realise some are going to say they should have been stronger, but that is only because Gullit also didn't turn out to restor the Keegan style and results either. He DID however, give more entertaining football (now this is not my particular ideal I don't give a fuck for this "sexy football" bollocks") but we moved up the table and reached the FA Cup Final again.

 

Robson is not in dispute. But these changes were all made right at the start of the season and so re-affirms that the "timing" is totally irrelevant when put aside the choice.

 

Do you really think it would have been "good timing" to sack a manager with the record Dalglish had, who had just got you to the FA Cup Final for the first time in 24 years (if Shearer had not been injured, that season could have been a lot different anyway but that is another story)

 

By the way, Alex Ferguson was appointed by ManU in the November, and Arsene Wenger in the September too. Were they "bad timing" ?

 

Two games into the season though Leazes, that makes no sense to me. I think the board were too gutless to sack him after the FA cup personally and were just waiting for an excuse. That's poor management. I always though Gullit was an awful appointment too - I must have missed the entertaining football bit. I would have liked to see him (Dalgish) have another season or have him replaced in June.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd argue timing is crucial. For example, if hughton is to be replaced let's hope the board don't follow in shepherds footsteps by backing him with transfer funds then sacking him after the window shuts leaving the new manager a 3 month wait and half the season before he can rebuild.

 

but it isn't necessarily the case. You can replace the manager in May or June, give him the whole summer and he could still fuck up. So where does the timing count then ? It is the manager that knows what he is doing is what matters, there is no bad time to appoint the manager who does the good job and buys and sells well for you.

 

i think it's nuts to back a manager then sack him september . if you give him funds, you've got to give the team a few months to see if the new players can gell.

 

when was sir bobby sacked again? wasn't it a day after the window shut or something? if i remember correctly, souness was walked shortly after the closure of a transfer window where he'd just spent a fortune. that's just daft.

 

ashley has a bold decision to make. either sack hughton (or ask him to return to being someone's number two) so he can bring in a new coach. if he does this it has to be - like you said - as soon as promotion is secured so we can build a squad over summer and get them playing together before the new season. the downside to this is we end up looking like the sterotypical impatient, poorly run, thick geordies that the likes of sky delight in portraying us as. who sacks a manager that has just won promotion?

 

or, he backs and sticks with hughton. again, if as we all suspect this is what happens, he should give the manager and the team a chance and not panic and sack the manager just after the window shuts, especially if he's backed him to the tune of a few million quid.

 

 

I don't agree. Results force situations. If you are bottom of the league or struggling, yet you know you have a group of players who should be doing better, then you have the whole season left to make something of the season. That is what happened with Gullit and Dalglish, particularly Gullit. They were both shown that change could improve the situation, for different reasons, so the change was made. And it improved the situation both times too. It was not the case with Robson, but the club had a manager lined up and if a good appointment had been made then things would have been entirely different.

 

 

How did the sacking of Daglish and replacement with Gullit bring improvement? Do you really think its justifiable to sack a manager TWO games into a season? Do you really not think it would have been better to bin Daglish at the end of the previous season to give his replacement some time to form his own team?

 

You talk a lot of sense LM but posts like this show you're blinded by loyalty to the old board imo.

 

improvement in terms of what happened after the manager was changed and the reasons for the change. Remember - Dalglish was sacked primarily because we had sank badly in the league, along with the accent on negative football ie "attack attack" at Wembley in the FA Cup Final of all places. They allowed him to make changes in the summer and the first few games were no different. So they sacked him, again, remember the support was not very happy with what they were seeing, and like it or not, you have to listen to your support (Shame Ashley doesn't)

 

I realise some are going to say they should have been stronger, but that is only because Gullit also didn't turn out to restor the Keegan style and results either. He DID however, give more entertaining football (now this is not my particular ideal I don't give a fuck for this "sexy football" bollocks") but we moved up the table and reached the FA Cup Final again.

 

Robson is not in dispute. But these changes were all made right at the start of the season and so re-affirms that the "timing" is totally irrelevant when put aside the choice.

 

Do you really think it would have been "good timing" to sack a manager with the record Dalglish had, who had just got you to the FA Cup Final for the first time in 24 years (if Shearer had not been injured, that season could have been a lot different anyway but that is another story)

 

By the way, Alex Ferguson was appointed by ManU in the November, and Arsene Wenger in the September too. Were they "bad timing" ?

 

Two games into the season though Leazes, that makes no sense to me. I think the board were too gutless to sack him after the FA cup personally and were just waiting for an excuse. That's poor management. I always though Gullit was an awful appointment too - I must have missed the entertaining football bit. I would have liked to see him (Dalgish) have another season or have him replaced in June.

 

Personally, a manager with Dalglish's record ought to have been given longer IMO, and I wasn't particularly bothered about Gullit, as I said, "sexy Football" left me cold I want winning football and thats what counts.

 

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

Edited March 16, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Renton 21364]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Those who called our appointment of Bobby Robson "lucky" would say the same of Wenger maybe .......

 

Surely not.

 

I think its the best example you will find to spell out that the basic timing doesn't really matter in the long term.

[Guest alex]

As well as Arsenal have been run down the years they did get very lucky with Wenger imo.

[Renton 21364]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Those who called our appointment of Bobby Robson "lucky" would say the same of Wenger maybe .......

 

Surely not.

 

I think its the best example you will find to spell out that the basic timing doesn't really matter in the long term.

 

Wenger's appointment was lucky or inspired imo. Robson's selection was obvious as he was a proven manager.

 

I'm not arguing that timing is the most crucial thing but it makes sense to plan your appointments in such a way that you get the manager you really want in. It seems to me that we have failed to do this mos the time which is why we have ended up with the likes of Souness.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Renton

[Craig 6682]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Wenger was appointed on September 30th 1996. By that time Arsenal had played 8 league games and 2 UEFA Cup games.

 

When you consider Souness was appointed on September 13th 2004 after only 4 league games, I don't think you are in any position to have a go at the Arsenal board. People in glass houses and all that...

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Those who called our appointment of Bobby Robson "lucky" would say the same of Wenger maybe .......

 

Surely not.

 

I think its the best example you will find to spell out that the basic timing doesn't really matter in the long term.

 

Wenger's appointment was lucky or inspired imo. Robson's selection was obvious as he was a proven manager.

 

I'm not arguing that timing is the most crucial thing but it makes sense to plan your appointments in such a way that you get the manager you really want in. It seems to me that we have failed to do this mos the time which is why we have ended up with the likes of Souness.

 

football is reactionary, selecting managers is also subject to availablity. You wouldn't stick with a manager for say 12 months just because Arsene Wengers contract will finish in 12 months. If you have to make a change, then you must get it done and see who is available. Alternatively, we could have went to Arsenal and said name your price, and paid whatever it took, but this is maybe not practical. I think backing Dalglish and then waiting to see how the season started was OK at the time, there is no need to assume anything would have improved when we started that season as we did. The supporters weren't happy at the change within such a short time from the team that he inherited. What I think, or you, doesn't really matter to them, we are only 2 supporters.

 

As I also said, you can give them the whole summer and does it make a difference. Allardyce had the whole summer, did he or did he not spend money well ? The timing of his appointment was, using your criteria, perfect. What did it do ?

 

We had a replacement for Bobby Robson lined up, but he changed his mind.

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Wenger was appointed on September 30th 1996. By that time Arsenal had played 8 league games and 2 UEFA Cup games.

 

When you consider Souness was appointed on September 13th 2004 after only 4 league games, I don't think you are in any position to have a go at the Arsenal board. People in glass houses and all that...

 

only a few games more. Most of the season was left. We could have kept Dalglish on for another 6 games, do you think anything would have been different ? If you think we should have stuck with Dalglish, then I agree, but this is about "timing" not the ability of the managers. Dalglish was a proven trophy winner, I would have stuck with him on those grounds. And I'm not having a go at the Arsenal board at all, I'm just pointing out that what they did, is done by many many other clubs.

[Craig 6682]

We had a replacement for Bobby Robson lined up, but he changed his mind.

 

If you're referring to either O'Leary or Venables then they'd have been as diabolical an appointment as Souness was.

 

Besides I seem to remember Shepherd going public (fancy that!) saying that Souness was his first choice as he wanted some discipline instilled into the club. Stop trying to break the connection between the chairman you worship and the manager you detest. He chose him and you'd think 5½ years down the line you might well have accepted that...

[Guest alex]

It's too simplistic to say the timing isn't important. The timing of the sacking of Robson resulted in us getting Souness. You can't tell me there wouldn't have been better options if it had been the previous June or the summer after. Obviously it was a reaction to the situation at the time but it was an overreaction imo. The appointment was a catastrophic one and the club has never really recovered (and I'm no Ashley apologist as you know). I agree that generally it's about getting the right man but this is one example where the timing was crucial.

[Craig 6682]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Wenger was appointed on September 30th 1996. By that time Arsenal had played 8 league games and 2 UEFA Cup games.

 

When you consider Souness was appointed on September 13th 2004 after only 4 league games, I don't think you are in any position to have a go at the Arsenal board. People in glass houses and all that...

 

only a few games more. Most of the season was left. We could have kept Dalglish on for another 6 games, do you think anything would have been different ? If you think we should have stuck with Dalglish, then I agree, but this is about "timing" not the ability of the managers. Dalglish was a proven trophy winner, I would have stuck with him on those grounds. And I'm not having a go at the Arsenal board at all, I'm just pointing out that what they did, is done by many many other clubs.

 

No need to get wax lyrical about the removal of Dalglish, I never understood it - not least by the fact that Gullit was his replacement. A man whos style of football was completely different to what the core of our team were about and a man who Had nowhere near the pedigree that Dalglish did.

 

Kenny was blamed by many for dismantling Keegan's team but those who believed that a man who'd won 4 League Championships and 2 FA Cups in a 10 year managerial period wasn't going to make his mark on a team managed by a man who'd frankly won the second tier of the English League and come mightily close to winning the Premiership were very naive.

 

Granted what was is display on the pitch wasn't pretty but the results were still there (runners up in the league & FA Cup final in 18 months was admirable) but still many weren't satisfied. Dalglish's biggest problem was that his appointment co-incided with the floatation. The club were obsessed with recouping money for the older players (Ferdinand in particular) and definitely stunted what Dalglish wanted to achieve.

 

If he'd been allowed the type of funds that he'd had at his disposal at Liverpool or Blackburn, or even what Keegan had before him I think it'd have been an altogether different story.

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway - do you or do you not think Wenger's appointment, in the September, was also "bad timing" or not ?

 

Inspired in retrospect but at the time I thought it was harsh on Rioch. Got to be said, Wenger is probably the best appointment in modern football history so you can hardly use it as a decent yardstick for an example of good football management. Also I don't think Rioch was terminated after only two games.

 

how many games then. 4 ? 5 ?

 

Wenger was appointed on September 30th 1996. By that time Arsenal had played 8 league games and 2 UEFA Cup games.

 

When you consider Souness was appointed on September 13th 2004 after only 4 league games, I don't think you are in any position to have a go at the Arsenal board. People in glass houses and all that...

 

only a few games more. Most of the season was left. We could have kept Dalglish on for another 6 games, do you think anything would have been different ? If you think we should have stuck with Dalglish, then I agree, but this is about "timing" not the ability of the managers. Dalglish was a proven trophy winner, I would have stuck with him on those grounds. And I'm not having a go at the Arsenal board at all, I'm just pointing out that what they did, is done by many many other clubs.

 

No need to get wax lyrical about the removal of Dalglish, I never understood it - not least by the fact that Gullit was his replacement. A man whos style of football was completely different to what the core of our team were about and a man who Had nowhere near the pedigree that Dalglish did.

 

Kenny was blamed by many for dismantling Keegan's team but those who believed that a man who'd won 4 League Championships and 2 FA Cups in a 10 year managerial period wasn't going to make his mark on a team managed by a man who'd frankly won the second tier of the English League and come mightily close to winning the Premiership were very naive.

 

Granted what was is display on the pitch wasn't pretty but the results were still there (runners up in the league & FA Cup final in 18 months was admirable) but still many weren't satisfied. Dalglish's biggest problem was that his appointment co-incided with the floatation. The club were obsessed with recouping money for the older players (Ferdinand in particular) and definitely stunted what Dalglish wanted to achieve.

 

If he'd been allowed the type of funds that he'd had at his disposal at Liverpool or Blackburn, or even what Keegan had before him I think it'd have been an altogether different story.

 

he was also unlucky re Shearers injury. But I agree he MAY have done the trick in the long run.

[LeazesMag 0]

We had a replacement for Bobby Robson lined up, but he changed his mind.

 

If you're referring to either O'Leary or Venables then they'd have been as diabolical an appointment as Souness was.

 

Besides I seem to remember Shepherd going public (fancy that!) saying that Souness was his first choice as he wanted some discipline instilled into the club. Stop trying to break the connection between the chairman you worship and the manager you detest. He chose him and you'd think 5½ years down the line you might well have accepted that...

 

you just ruined the debate.

 

I'm realistic. I've also just said I disagreed with them sacking Dalglish.

[Craig 6682]

We had a replacement for Bobby Robson lined up, but he changed his mind.

 

If you're referring to either O'Leary or Venables then they'd have been as diabolical an appointment as Souness was.

 

Besides I seem to remember Shepherd going public (fancy that!) saying that Souness was his first choice as he wanted some discipline instilled into the club. Stop trying to break the connection between the chairman you worship and the manager you detest. He chose him and you'd think 5½ years down the line you might well have accepted that...

 

you just ruined the debate.

 

I'm realistic. I've also just said I disagreed with them sacking Dalglish.

 

How has it ruined the debate? Because I'm not totally agreeing with you? Whether it's implied or not, the undertone of what you said previously is that Souness wasn't first choice more a fall-back for Shepherd making the appointment "OK"....

 

Whether he was 1st choice, 2nd choice or 363rd choice, he was still the wrong appointment.

[LeazesMag 0]

We had a replacement for Bobby Robson lined up, but he changed his mind.

 

If you're referring to either O'Leary or Venables then they'd have been as diabolical an appointment as Souness was.

 

Besides I seem to remember Shepherd going public (fancy that!) saying that Souness was his first choice as he wanted some discipline instilled into the club. Stop trying to break the connection between the chairman you worship and the manager you detest. He chose him and you'd think 5½ years down the line you might well have accepted that...

 

you just ruined the debate.

 

I'm realistic. I've also just said I disagreed with them sacking Dalglish.

 

How has it ruined the debate? Because I'm not totally agreeing with you? Whether it's implied or not, the undertone of what you said previously is that Souness wasn't first choice more a fall-back for Shepherd making the appointment "OK"....

 

Whether he was 1st choice, 2nd choice or 363rd choice, he was still the wrong appointment.

 

"chairman you worship" is no more or less extreme than those who slate the "chairman they despise" who gave them by far the best 15 years seen in the last 50. And it was the Halls and Shepherd anyway.

[Craig 6682]

If you think the Halls were primarily interested in anything ahead what they could trouser, you want you head examined tbh.

 

Of the three, I think Shepherd WAS the one who had passion about what the club could achieve - I just don't think he applied himself well and made a succession of mistakes which helped the club down the slippery slope.

[LeazesMag 0]

If you think the Halls were primarily interested in anything ahead what they could trouser, you want you head examined tbh.

 

Of the three, I think Shepherd WAS the one who had passion about what the club could achieve - I just don't think he applied himself well and made a succession of mistakes which helped the club down the slippery slope.

 

Maybe. You are probably right. I just hope somebody comes along pretty sharpish and matches what they did then betters it.

[Percy Street 0]

Kenny was blamed by many for dismantling Keegan's team but those who believed that a man who'd won 4 League Championships and 2 FA Cups in a 10 year managerial period wasn't going to make his mark on a team managed by a man who'd frankly won the second tier of the English League and come mightily close to winning the Premiership were very naive.

 

Granted what was is display on the pitch wasn't pretty but the results were still there (runners up in the league & FA Cup final in 18 months was admirable) but still many weren't satisfied. Dalglish's biggest problem was that his appointment co-incided with the floatation. The club were obsessed with recouping money for the older players (Ferdinand in particular) and definitely stunted what Dalglish wanted to achieve.

 

If he'd been allowed the type of funds that he'd had at his disposal at Liverpool or Blackburn, or even what Keegan had before him I think it'd have been an altogether different story.

 

 

I beg to differ. The results weren't there under Dalglish. He got a runners up with Keegan's team (taking over in the February if memory serves). The full season he was in charge (trusting memory here again!) we were, I think, 13th and only 4 points or so off a relegation spot - and the football was tedious in the extreme. So much harder to take on the back of inheriting the best and most exciting NUFC team I'd ever seen.

 

Its all opinions, fair enough like, but Dalglish didn't impress me at the time and does so even less in retrospect. And those mumbled miserable press calls could actually make Glenn Roeder sound charismatic.